I have been seeing so much of a certain line of thinking that goes... "I am a logical, rational, evolved, and intelligent human who does not believe in things I can't see unless science proves to me that it exists."

So the question I would like to get everyon's opinion on is this -

If you can't see your soul, don't you have to have some kind of blind faith to believe it's there? Does the majority of non-religious people not believe in souls, or do they? If the soul is a supernatural being, is it silly to believe in it since you can't see hard proof of it? Just curious on everyone's opinion on this subject.

I believe there is an 'I' part of my existence. Something that defines me as a sentient being capable of having these thoughts and this conversation. This can be thought of as the soul or spirit or energy or the ego/id/superego of psychology but I believe it exists.

It is supernatural in that we don't have an explanation for how this operates to give us our "I'ness" so I have to take it on faith that my belief is correct. While I am an 'evolved, sometimes logical and would-like-to-think-rational, human being of indeterminate intelligence' I accept that we don't know everything. Personally I hope we never know everything as why else would we have a reason to continue existing unless we have something left to discover?

As logical, rational and intelligent as anyone on the planet might be, there's always that one part that whistles past the graveyard, or refuses to walk under a ladder..
Logically there's no basis for behaving that way, but it's ingrained in all of us nonetheless.
I think the soul resides in that place too, and if you try to apply logic and science to the belief in it, you'll probably be disappointed. It's one place where never the twain shall meet..

I am not religious (meaning I dont follow an organized religion)..but I do believe we all have souls.

To me it's not silly..but then thats because I am a believer in God...Im baised that way LOL

There is probably no logical way to prove the existence of a soul, just like there is no logical/scientific way to prove the existence of God. I know I have a soul just as I know I have a personal relationship with God, despite the fact that I can't prove this fact to anyone else.

The faith that titles and defines a construct like "soul" isn't logical. So it follows, everything else is relative to thinking to life that there's more to living , even when we're not anymore. Afterlife, soul, god. It all speaks to that superficial self-importance inherent in the human animal. I am, so I am special above all else that is. And since we can understand, in our own perceptive bias, what death looks like and means to us personally , our myths are always arranged, across virtually every culture, to impart no matter what, we never really die. Because we're special. And have something we faithfully call, soul. Unlike anything else alive, that we faithfully believe doesn't.

And it strikes me funny that some people claim their beloved pets don't have a soul. When that little being is as sentient in it's unique way, as are they. And yet , one can actually believe when they die, because that animal is so, it won't be there to bring them joy in the after life, as it did in this one. Because somehow a myth says they're not worthy because of what they were, that brought us unconditional love and happiness for it, while they were here. Some paradise! No Mooses or Panda's!? What the....



I don't label what invigorates me to life as soul. I figure I can't take the sensory centers I had in this body, out of it when it stops moving. When it was here, is the only time subjective ideals of "afterlife" , "soul", and the feelings or physical sensations related to those places, that made imagining the experience of those places mattered. (hell-for some, is pain, burning forever, etc... others it's removal from gods sight for eternity, others it's a vault of ice.) After that, it's literally immaterial. So, why let that that literally wont matter , after, matter to me now!?

I live to say, as my opinion of this subject: Enjoy life! It's the one thing you know for a fact.

Great answers! All interesting. I love seeing everyone's individuality represented in their answers. Have to get off the (shared) computer now *teardrop slides down cheek*, but will try to read more in few days or week.

I like picking your brains.

Peace, friends.

You know in your heart you have a soul, thats what matters!!

Well I haven't seen a clear definition of what a soul is but It seems like its some sort of energy that all life contains. For all
that we know of the physical body, the sould doesn't seem to have a function...and as soon as we can clearly solve the mysteries of the brain I think the soul will be more clearly defined or disproven.

I'm neutral in belief. I can't say whether I do or not. I know my brain is where my memories and thoughts happen, so until I can confirm there is something else at work, I won't try to guess either way.

(If this is relating to a belief in a god that's governing our universe, I'll be the first to say that the two are extremely different things.)

What about God? There is no proof he exists yet billions of people believe in him.

Getting back on topic, maybe people don't want to believe that we are more than tiny pieces of matter and that this sh!tty life is the end certainly speak for myself.

I hope we have souls

i dont believe in souls, not because there is no physical proof of it, but because its just not in me to believe in things like that. I really wish we had a soul or there was an afterlife, but i cant believe that, and about what you said about you not being able to get hard proof of it because tis a supernatural being, im sure many people on here would disagree on that, there are many here who probably believe they have hard proof of its existance.

There has been many people that doctors ect, have done tests on others and turns out they have had past lives, this is part of the reason as to WHY I believe...to me that is good enough evidence!!

i never heard of this, i didnt think it would be possible to prove such things as past lives (BTW good to se you again BM)

Oh science has its ways to prove it...if you watch the discovery channel you will see programmes like it...they are intresting...

Heck who'd of thought, science actually proving that others in a way do have souls

I believe every living thing has a soul or a spirit. Can I prove it, no, but you can't prove we don't have one either. From the experiences I have had in my life it is logical for me to believe we have souls. But if you have not had the experiences I have had there is no logical way to prove existence of the soul or the non- existence.

Soul is just a term to define who/why we are, what we are.
To think of it as anything supernatural or even physical, to believe it "lives" on after we die, is IMO... pointless. It's wanting more from life, than what their is.

I was going to ask the question anyway..your quote is just a good segway into it:

Let's assume for arguments sake that humans have a 'soul' and animals other than human do not. Let's assume that God did breath into man a 'soul'. And, let's assume that the soul lives on after the death of the body.

Remember these are just assumptions for arguments sake....

The question then:

If the above is all true, (and we are assuming it is for arguments sake) at what point does the soul exist? At the point of conception? At 3 months fetal? Is it only when we are actually born and breath that first breath of oxygen into our lungs?

If it is at conception, which is the exact nano-second that a sperm penetrates and fertilizes the egg, then billions of souls exist in the after life that never had a brain, never had a heart beat, never had even the chance to multiply and divide and become a fetus.

If it is only after a heartbeat is established in the fetus, then we have billions of souls out there that never had a cognitive thought...and cannot the same be said of newly born infants who have breathed in oxygen?

It wasn't my intention to turn this thread into an abortion argument btw...so, please let's don't go there...but if we do have a soul, when do we acquire it is a relevant question, eh?

If time itself was an honest unchangeable measure than there would be little or no hope for the soul. But science has shown that time is relative and theoretically bendable, quantum physics has demonstrated that space and time are a construct of the mind in order to measure our existance. Psychology has shown us that perception of time is also relative to the individual. Our own belief systems (religions) all point to the existence of the soul of man.

Every culture has a belief in an afterlife; man’s spirit is evident in his love, creativity, consciousness and in his passion and his art.
If all we had to rely on was our five senses we would still have a mountain of evidence. Our five senses are but the tip of the iceberg of evidence in support of the existence of the spirit.

It is the science of reasoning that dictates the very existence of a soul/spirit of man and it is this reasoning that itself is evidence of such. Reasoning and intellect cannot be dissected on the laboratory bench much as you cannot dissect the soul.

Within the womb we had eyes, fingers and brain but they were of little use to you in the world you existed in. They were there to prepare you for a world you would soon enter. Perhaps psychic ability is like arms and legs in the womb, preparing us for the next realm of existence.

The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time in our existence it begins within us. The laws of physics prove that the mind cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our mind is transcendent to the physical reality of our existence.

With new technologies being discovered every day I believe in the near future we will have the measure we need to remove all doubt about the existence of an eternal soul.

Irish

In my belief system the soul exist before conception and enters at conception and leaves at death to move on to another body.

If the soul already exists, why then does it even need a body? And, if the soul already exists, how did it come to exist?

"The soul that is sinning it itself will die" The soul is the body. Animals have souls.

Exactly Leonardo. We have brains, but the grand debate is if our consciousness is separate from our physical brain. But the I'ness you speak of is what defines us not just as human, but as life. It's what makes us different from inanimate objects. If you compare our brain with other organs, it is fascinating. Muscles, for example, do not think for themselves. In general, you control them. And all they can do is contract and move. Yet your brain, also an organ, defines everything with little more than flesh and electricity, hence the same thing that is in your muscles, to be broad. There is such a stunning difference that it is almost illogical to not believe in a soul. You may define soul as you wish, but I believe it is some sort of consciousness that is invested within your body, but is not a physical organ, rather it is ethereal. Humans and life in general is far too complex to water down to the boolean logic of computers, there has to be something more inside that makes us us. Do you see our computer creations, running upon the same basic ideas that we run on, thinking for themselves, having consciousness? No. Any intelligence computers have has been programmed into them. This strengthens the debate.

Hence I believe we have souls, spirits, or whatever you decide to label our consciousness. Who we are being a product of chemical reactions and electricity passing between neurons is an absurd concept, because it defies everything in the natural world. And if you believe in these arguments or scoff at them, know that no matter what your body, in reality, is full of electrical and chemical energy. This energy has to go some place upon death, and I'm led to believe it would do what all energy does -- change forms. Yet could simple energy and flesh birth humanity, after all we have achieved? Why is there love, jealousy, grief, pleasure, or life itself?


The real question is, Joc, what is human which is not flesh. Does a fetus think for itself, have free will? Do you remember when you were a fetus, a zygote, or a sperm/egg? These questions you have asked are not difficult questions if you put some thought into them, and I encourage you to answer them yourself. What makes birth the beginning of all consciousness?

Use your logic

"Who loves Irish? , I do"

I believe, the soul Doesnt NEED a body but we use a body to gain experience and knowledge into who or what we are and what we would like to mold ourselves into, Most people however do not take advantage of this and instead seek self indulgence, running towards whatever pleasure they can. Weather it be drugs, sexual pleasure, emotions, relationships.

How did the soul come to exist? Maybe our soul is part of God, or depending on the person perhaps lack of God (that which is not God).
And since God exists outside the confines of the universe, i.e. Time, this is where we our souls origionated.

Then again Im not entirely sure if I believe in an Individual human 'Soul'
However I do without a shadow of a doubt believe in a 'Spirit' which is eternal and slides from 1 life to the next. As the evidence for reincarnation is staggering, and very difficult to pass off. The spirit is what i believe we are before we start our lives, and it gives us that edge in this world. An individual Soul though, maybe there is, but if there is one I doubt its as simple as we make it seem.
That is we die and our consciousness becomes a 'ghost' type copy of our consciousness when we were alive.

Its possible, I think perhaps the knowledge and memory we each have at this particular moment is just one tiny grain of our true mind which exists outsied the illusions of space and time, and contains the combined knowledge of all our perceptions and that there is perhaps a group/collective of minds which creates the illusion of our current reality (and perhaps other realities).

i go with this too avi or S.O.U.L singular outflow of universal life.....but this glamorized we all have our own little souls to be saved another drama man likes to entrtain hisself with lol .....

irish science or quantum physics and quantum mechanics have alot of theorys as of now that point very strongly to what the mystics have been saying from the begiining of time, Relgion is a construct, imaginings of a overactive imagination...

we will see in the very near future that life is all integral and connected, as evry nystic and master has reported we are all the same thing their ( 99,9 percent wea re all made up of hte same thing ) no seperation from anything...note the plank scale aka the unified field of everything ..... , that is becoming glaringly obvious just with global warming we have the ability to affect weather patterns around the globe to affect the ecosystems, this shows that we are all in this together and that the earth is not flat, cigarrettes do kill you and religion/dietys are made up .....Religon has no idea on how it all works after all and we are about to get some ground breaking ideas on just this.......ther are alot of holes now, but htats okay I'm sure ther is a group somewahe that still bleeive the earth is flat and I knkow ther are alot of smokers who deny the ill effects.....

And I encourage you to stop oversimplifying the question. I encourage you to answer the question I asked.

Does a fetus think for itself or have free will? No. Do I remember being a fetus? No. Surely you aren't suggesting that the 'soul' begins at our earliest memory? What makes birth the beginning of all consciousness? I'm sorry, I stopped smoking pot a long time ago...why don't you enlighten us?

it is beleived Raven that one wakes up to themself , one self realizes to varing degrees and its genetically encoded that most do not have concious memories of certain states of beingness..... We just don't know enough yet Joc those are great questions ones few never ask , except if you are Raven lol....
A very bright kid

Some people are born with brain deficiencies to the point that they never really reach an age of reasoning or understanding. The questions I ask are just trying to point out that one cannot 'pin-point' the 'soul'. I have a theory on it all but it is way out there and way too late to even discuss it...later

If the question can be simplified, then there is no reason not to simplify it. As in mathematics, when a problem is in its most simple form, it becomes the easiest problem to understand, and also will have the answer that is also easy to understand. It is known by everyone who works with philosophy that you ask the easier questions first.

Joc, you criticize me for simplifying your questions, and now you are cynical of mine. If you're going to take that pathetic puff-chest attitude, then answer the questions and prove me wrong and heighten your ego on this message board even more.

Joc i loves ya but if I was gonna rap about souls and such i'd look for Raven, you will get a intelleegent conversation with one who is open.....He would not be being rude only helppful from my experince.....Raven joc is a great person sometimes he comes off gruff but he's not at all.....

That isn't quite how the scientific view works. Scientists (if they are honest) believe only in things for which they have a good deal of evidence and the degree to which they believe something depends on the quality and quantity of the evidence for it. Science doesn't 'prove' anything. It doesn't try to. That just isn't what science is about.



A more comprehensive question would be 'is there any evidence that we have souls?' and the answer would be no. Given this, if you take a scientific view then it is illogical to believe in souls. If you do believe in souls, then you are indeed relying on blind faith and not on logic. I think these two ways of looking at the world are not compatible. If you take a scientific view, then you can't make exceptions for things you happen to have blind faith in - like souls or god. It just doesn't seem honest to me. Quite a lot of people disagree though.



The fact that we don't know how something works doesn't make it supernatural. To be supernatural, something should, even in principle, be unexplainable by 'naturalism' (i.e. science).

We certainly don't know everything, but that doesn't mean that anything is necessarilly unknowable.



I'm not convinced that's true. If (and I don't believe so for a second) god exists, then there may well be a way to test it scientifically. What about prayer answering, for example? If we assume god answers prayers, then we should be able to do a study of prayers answered versus not answered (there have already been (not especially good) studies of this, as it happens).

What is it that makes people think that god, if he exists, couldn't be detected scientifically? The fact that we haven't detected him so far? What logical or philosophical or scientific principle implies this?

The same goes for souls. It may indeed be the case that of god exists, and because of his omnipitence, that he would intefere with all our attempts to detect him (or souls). But none of this means that either need be scientifically undetectable in principle.

And that is not logical.



Or maybe when people realise that this life IS the end, they start making the most of it.



It 'turns out they have had past lives'? I think this is a bit strong. Some people have claimed that past lives have been uncovered. Indeed, there is some evidence for this. But we have to look at the quality of that evidence, which is very poor indeed. I assume you are talking about hypnotic regression (sorry if I'm wrong about this). The problem with using this for evidence is that it is highly subjective. How can you tell whether or not someone is making it up? Regression within *one* lifetime is not well supported by evidence. Regression into previous lifetimes even less so.

The reasoning seems generally to follow the lines of: "the subject shouldn't have known x, but said x during the session, therefore past lives exist". This is just insulting to human reasoning abilities. Who decided that the subject didn't know this in advance? How does anyone *know*?

Add to this the fact that even highly inaccurate correspondences between what a patient says under hypnosis and historical record are often considered a 'hit' and that 'misses' can be systematically ignored. I'm not saying this happens all the time, of course, but I woudn't be at all surprised if this is happening in some of the cases you are thinking of.

One final point: if there really *did* exist strong, unequivicable evidence for past lives, don't you think it would have turned the entire world upside down? Don't you think scientists would be *rushing* to study it, rather than its being a fringe activity in science at best? Don't you think that the overall spirituality of the world population would show a dramatic reaction?

The evidence for past lives is far from conclusive. In fact, I'm being way too polite about it - it really doesn't exist outside a very few wishful thinkers.



Indeed science does have ways to prove it....or rather to generate evidence for it. However, I'm not aware of any proper, controlled tests that have actually been carried out. The ones I do know about are so flawed as to be almost funny.

Of course, I'd be interested to look at reports of proper tests that do not rely on the subjective opinion of the researchers.



It has done no such thing.

I don't see why. What does the nature of time have to do with the existance of souls? I agree that the question of when a human being actually gets its soul is a difficult one, but that seems more to be a question about the nature of souls than of time.



OK, so I agree about time being relative...although I don't see what this has to do with souls. QM certainly has not ' demonstrated that space and time are a construct of the mind in order to measure our existance'. Some people interpret some parts of QM in that way, but it is far from a mainstream view and is certainly not necessary to make QM work. That is, if I understand correctly what you mean by this statement. We don't need psychologists to tell us that people percieve time differently - that is quite clear - but it is less clear what that has to do with souls. I just don't understand that part.

That aside though, I cannot say that a) my 'belief system' is a religion (it categorically is not) or that my belief system points to the existance of souls. Perhaps you are saying that you mean 'religion' when you say 'belief system', which seems hardly fair. Not that we should get into this in this thread, but atheism is not a religion, yet it is a 'belief system'.




Not mine.



I'm not sure I understand why the existance of a soul is necessary to create great art or to be passionate and creative. Isn't it possible that these things could exist without souls?



What evidence? If there is a mountain of it, then it should be easy to cite some.



Why not? I can certainly 'dissect' reasoning in the sense of logic and psychology. Is this what you mean? I can dissect intellect in various ways too - although I certainly don't understand everything about either. This doesn't mean that they cannot in principle be understood in their entirity though - maybe they can. Ditto souls.



I'm struggling to understand this. Do you mean that since we are conscious, consciousness must start at some particular time? This seems like a tautology so I'm sure it isn't what you mean.



Excuse me? Could you please explain precisely which physical laws prove this?

Says who? That is just an opinion, but you are stating it as a fact. You may personally *feel* it is true and may not be able to grasp how consciousness can be expressed as an algorithm (and you are not alone there, nobody else can yet either), but that doesn't make your (or anyone else's) opinions facts. I think you should be a bit more careful about how you express things like that.

Who says the brain using boolean logic anyway (it doesn't)?



It strengthens nothing. Just because the computers we have today exhibit no genuine intelligence, this hardly implies that artificial intelligence is not possible. Perhaps we just don't know enough about brains yet to replicate their behaviour in artificial computers.



I don't understand this. What does the concept defy? EVERYTHING in the natural world? What does this mean? Consciousness as a product of brain activity defies....oh, let's pick photosynthesis? I'm not trying to take the piss here - I'm just genuinely trying to understand what you mean.



It certainly doesn't just disappear, correct. But so what? The same is true of a fridge.



I'm getting a bit lost here. Humanity is a product of evolution, which is a little bit more than 'simple energy and flesh'. On the other hand, I'm pretty certain that 'simple energy and flesh' causes children to be born.



They are easy questions to answer. ANY question is easy to answer. The trick is getting the RIGHT answer, which is not always so easy. I prefer to approach what seems to be the right answer using science. Science has not yet produced any evidence for the existance of souls. So I think its a pretty safe bet that souls don't exist. If science DID find good evidence for souls, I would change my mind in a heartbeat - not because I am especially sympathetic to souls but because I would do that if *any* of my science-based beliefs were overturned by conclusive evidence.

hi all,
was just browsing through some ufo stuff and discover this conversation, so i joined up so be nice! this is my first post..... well i've read somewhere, this man (apologies, cant remember your name) said that "we dont have a soul, we have a body" ages ago and from then i always wonder and think we do not control our body, it moves on how we feel and feelings comes from within and within is where the soul lives. sometimes this feeling can even surpass the control of the brain, a classic saying i always hear in films "people do crazy things when they'r in love" yup i believed that our emotion can over write the control of the brain. have you ever done something that your mind tells you not to but your emotion just let u flow? i know i have and no i dont take drugs, i'm just a guy with an open view on life and the meaning of existance + ufo ahahaha peace to you all.

But what do we truly know beyond what we, assuming we are solipsistic creatures, know other than what we as individuals see and feel? I don't find it believable, in my opinion, that the human experience could be reduced to boolean logic and algorithms. And if so, what operates the program?

Possibly, but the point is artificial intelligence would still be the product of human programming. It is still an inanimate object endowed with a human likeness.

Well, as 'simple energy and flesh' being able to create what we are seems illogical. I realize our brain is a very powerful device, however if the electrical impulses in our brain is really our thoughts and consciousness, wouldn't that mean other impulses of electricity could create consciousness, too, in inanimate objects such as computers? I also realize our brain cells and the structure of our brain is complex, but even so, it seems miraculous that only those things could create life as we know it. Maybe our definition of life is what needs to be reunderstood.

Maybe a fridge is conscious, it simply has no way to communicate with us.

Well if your answer is going to be 'I just don't believe it' then we have nothing to discuss. If you were to explain what you based that belief on, we might be able to have an interesting discussion.

Erm...maybe. That didn't answer my point in any way though.



Seems? Well, you may think so, but so what? That doesn't make it so. I really wish you had a point other than 'well, it doesn't seem quite right to me...'

Not necessarily, no. But I'd be willing to bet it could, if we knew enough about brains.



I'm sorry? Brains=life? Plants are life too. They don't have brains. Many things are alive that have brains that are really quite easily understood. Perhaps I don't understand your point.



Erm...if you say so. But that wasn't the point I was making, was it?

I don't find it believable because of the complexity and seemingly limitless nature of the human consciousness. This is not to say we are super heroes with psionic powers, however it seems as though, even though complex, what we have in consciousness is so much more complex than even the most naturally complex systems that it falls slightly outside of their range. We don't know enough about the brain yet, of course, but regardless the system we have doesn't seem as though it could create what we call consciousness, since some other complex systems and electrical systems do not fit into our definition of conscious or alive yet may be similarly complex, on a grander scale. Such a discussion brings up the idea of universal consciousness or even a literally personified "Mother Nature," since nature as a whole, when compared to our brain and body, is quite similar. Is it conscious? Why or why not?
It is still a human likeness. Although we can't mechanically create humans yet - not on the topic of genetic engineering and cloning, but as we build a machine - any free will or consciousness instilled into a machine is still put into that machine. The complex system of parts itself does not naturally create this likeness of consciousness, rather we have to give it to them by our hard work and programming. Thus their free will is still bounded by our programming. Humans, arguably have similar boundaries, but I don't quite see a strong enough connection between the limits of the human mind and imagination and and artificial intelligence.


Clearly, however by the definition of life, if we are to settle with consciousness being a completely organic process and the product of electrical impulses in our brain and nothing more, things such as bolts of lightning, machines, refrigerators, and other devices are not considered life. These objects may be conscious, however, even though we define them as inanimate and objects, yet simply unable to communicate with us. Because the individual is inherently that, individual, we can only be sure of one thing - our own consciousness. For all I know, I may be the only consciousness to exist!

Let's be clear. What don't you find believable and why does human consciousness support it being unbelievable?

Try to avoid being self-satisfied if you can.

I tried to be clear enough, but what I find unbelievable is how we could compare human consciousness to flesh and blood. I don't think there are limits to our understanding, and I doubt there have been any proven ones. As long as we have an imagination it seems as though our understanding has limitless possibility. Because of such possibility and, again, imagination, the things that go on in our head seem too complex -- the things that make us life -- to be confined simply to electrical impulses in the brain. I know that the brain is very complex and we have little understanding of its inner workings, but even so what we know as consciousness seems miraculous. Not a gift from some god like many will claim, but at least something metaphysical.

I believe that multiple parallel universes comprise what we perceive as physical reality. I also believe in one of those parellel realms, lays our "soul".

Yes, I'm sure you did and I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. However, you didn't answer my question at all. I don't understand why.



Nobody at all does this. Lots of things have flesh and blood without having human consciousness. What a really odd thing to say.

Latsot, this is ridiculous. I've avoided being aloof and been as straightforward as possible. Tell me specifically what you want to hear and I'll explain what I feel about it.

A soul?! I believe that there is no distinction between Soul and God itself. And it is great to be rational and logical etc but they are not the only means of viewing the universe in which we are a part. Logical only exists insofar illogical exists and rationality exists only insofar as irationality and so on. No such thing as a mutually exclusive opposite.

latsot,

If we were to use this definition of 'supernatural' then we should say nothing is supernatural. How can we know, for instance, if we will never have an explanation for something we cannot currently explain?

I, for one, cannot see the future. Therefore I choose to view anything we cannot currently explain by the natural laws as 'supernatural'. Perhaps the definition of supernatural you use is a misinterpretation as I cannot see it possible the definition was meant to exclude any future scientific discovery or presume our scientific knowledge complete?